well some that come to mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Freo - Freopedia only cost for WMAU has been Craig to Perth for the Launch, and from reports was well recieved at Wikimania in Hong Kong... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Takes_Waroona, prelude to a Wikitown there. then there 2 of us doign a workshop tomorrow in Toodyay, and 3 of us being part of the Shire of Toodyay demostrations on Saturday for a third WikiTown there -- WMAU approved $200 to cover some expenses but well below the true costs of running the two
add to that, the work of SatuSuro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Takes_Western_Australian_Wheatbelt_Railways_2013 and to that a larger Wheatbelt project... Its not talking about ideas thats going to change things it needs more people to get out there and do things, Gideon On 8 October 2013 10:39, Adam Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > I realised one big mistake in the wording of my email. The question as to > what projects we can put into place is not intended at the committee as > such, but for everyone interested. I've started talking to people about some > ideas, but I'm wondering how we, as WMAU, can work out some really good > projects to put us into a position where we exceed the WMF's expectations, > and what ideas to do so we can come up with. :) > > Adam. > > > > On 8 October 2013 11:50, Leigh Blackall <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> kickstarter? >> I think it now does Australian projects... >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Adam Jenkins <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi! >>> >>> Thanks for explaining things. I need to say upfront that I'm not trying >>> to raise doubts about the ARC linkage grant. But from reading the replies, >>> we are currently in the process of committing $140k over three years based >>> on existing funds of (at best) $75k. I disagree that we should be tackling >>> this on the understanding that we can pull out in subsequent years - it >>> would be very unusual for that to be permitted, as it would leave the >>> university with insufficient funds to complete the research. If that >>> happened, the university would have to convince another partner to cover the >>> remaining funds, reduce the research scope, or cancel the project. If >>> cancelled, we damage our reputation with partner institutions as well as >>> losing any money previously invested. If a partner steps up, we damage our >>> reputation. We need to go into this with the intent of being committed for >>> the full amount, not with the belief that we are able to pull out if the >>> funds don't materialise. >>> >>> So from what you are saying, we are in trouble. Not as much trouble as we >>> would be if the $50k payment was still expected in 2014, but not in a nice >>> place. We have only half the funds needed to meet existing (or at least in >>> process) commitments over the next three years, (and are short of having >>> enough funds to meet our commitments in the next two years), have no >>> additional funds to spend on new projects unless we pull the money from the >>> linkage grant commitment (which will increase the risk of defaulting) or >>> pull out of that project (which we certainly do not want to do), and are >>> being told that we would be unsuccessful in getting funds through the major >>> funding body (the FDC) that has been providing grants to the Chapters. >>> >>> Going on the assumption that we should move forward with the linkage >>> grant, (which we should do), we need to guarantee at least $10k from the WMF >>> or the FDC to meet the 2015 commitment, assuming no additional expenditure, >>> and $50k to meet 2016. This will be difficult, in that I gather there will >>> not be a deliverable until 2017, so we need to present this as a three year >>> program instead of focusing on the annual grant model, or we will need to >>> show metrics which can be applied each year. This is especially problematic >>> for us as the measuring tools linked to do not seem to work well for this >>> sort of project. That said, I don't think that any of this is impossible. >>> >>> So back to my initial question, how do we tackle this? At worst, we need >>> funding through Round 1 of the 2014/2015 FDC grants process, which means we >>> need to be in a position to successfully request funding by September next >>> year, or be assured that we can get funds for our needs through an >>> alternative grants process by the end of 2015. Thus, what projects can we >>> put in place that either require no funding or very limited funding, will be >>> fully completed by September 2014, (including all reporting requirements and >>> metrics), and will be impressive enough as a set to justify a large grant >>> for an unusual project? And if we do need more funding for these projects, >>> how much time do we need to factor in so as to go through the grants process >>> with the WMF, or do we risk pulling funds from those currently committed? >>> >>> I should also add that I think that the committee and members have done >>> some great work over the last year. I think part of the problem is that we >>> haven't been informing the WMF of the successes and strength of the current >>> committee as well as we should. In coming up with new projects, we should >>> also be looking at how we share the successes beyond the metrics offered. I >>> believe that if the WMF was better aware of some of the work the committee >>> has been doing, funding would be much less of an issue. >>> >>> Adam. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7 October 2013 23:34, G. White <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Adam, >>>> >>>> I went to the initial meeting/workshop/training session of the new >>>> Program Evaluation and Design (PE&D) Team that is now working closely with >>>> the Grants Team. In line with what Sue has recently said about measurable >>>> impact for money spent, the team is developing and disseminating tools to >>>> help Wikimedians gather data to help measure the inputs/outputs/outcomes >>>> and >>>> longer term impacts of programs and activities. They have produced this >>>> data >>>> prep sheet. Here is the Evaluation Portal. >>>> >>>> Craig is right about getting demonstrable small runs on the board to >>>> show we can plan AND deliver - that is, BOTH, not just one or the other. >>>> When I was talking to some of the leaders of the Grants team, they were >>>> bewildered at the fractiousness and unresponsiveness of the Australian >>>> chapter (they were referring to the period before the last Chapter >>>> election). From a distance, the level of general disarray and argument >>>> appears comparable to the US government's current paralysis, and about as >>>> comprehensible. >>>> >>>> The Chapter needs good processes because good processes produce good >>>> outcomes. However, processes are not the same thing as rules. We need to >>>> quietly and competently incorporate any necessary rules into our processes. >>>> Kerry and Craig are working on this. Then we need to document our processes >>>> and get on with small, achievable, well planned programs. I agree with >>>> Craig >>>> that our success will not be measured in how much funding we get. >>>> >>>> Whiteghost.ink >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7 October 2013 19:27, Kerry Raymond <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Before WMAU would need to pay even the first year of money for the >>>>> linkage grant, we (WMAU, UQ and APC) have to agree a legal contract in >>>>> relation to project. The UQ-drafted contract we have been given would seek >>>>> to commit WMAU to all 3 years of funding. Obviously WMAU does not wish to >>>>> agree to that given the uncertainty in relation to this funding and we >>>>> will >>>>> be seeking to have the contract varied to allow us to not make the >>>>> subsequent payments if we have not been able to obtain those funds from >>>>> WMF >>>>> (or elsewhere). There are other issues with the contract in relation to >>>>> intellectual property, levels of indemnity etc that also need to be >>>>> resolved. I agree with Craig that this is likely to be a slow process. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If any WMAU member happens to be a lawyer, we would be very happy to >>>>> have your assistance in this matter. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Kerry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> From: [email protected] >>>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Craig >>>>> Franklin >>>>> Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013 3:31 PM >>>>> To: Wikimedia-au >>>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Funding Query >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Adam, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the question. As you've noted, we haven't put in a funding >>>>> request to this round's FDC process. This has largely come about because >>>>> in >>>>> discussions with members of the FDC and the Foundation staff supporting >>>>> the >>>>> FDC, we were 'encouraged' not to apply in this round for a variety of >>>>> reasons. Chief among those was a desire to see a more substantial record >>>>> of >>>>> evaluation, impact, and value for money in the projects that we do. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To this end, we need to reposition the chapter from an organisation >>>>> that attempts large, expensive, and complex projects to an organisation >>>>> that >>>>> sets goals that are more modest, measurable, and achievable. This is >>>>> going >>>>> to require a cultural shift in the way we administer the chapter, as our >>>>> previous success in participating in the fundraiser means that we have not >>>>> developed the evaluation and project management mechanisms that we would >>>>> have done if we'd continued to evolve without the sudden windfall >>>>> injection >>>>> of tens of thousands of dollars. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In relation to the actual figures and numbers, I'm happy to share >>>>> those. Please note that the figures I'm quoting here are only >>>>> approximate, >>>>> I'm sure that John Vandenberg can come and give more precise figures if >>>>> they're needed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The commitment for the first round of the Paralympic project is in the >>>>> realm of $25,000. This payment has not yet been made, while we continue >>>>> to >>>>> work with UQ and APC to determine how this will work administratively. As >>>>> you've noted, this money is quarantined and locked in, subject to the >>>>> necessary paperwork with UQ and APC being agreed to. At the moment, I'm >>>>> expecting the actual payment will probably not occur until early in >>>>> calendar >>>>> year 2014 (but I might be pleasantly surprised). Kerry is handling the >>>>> direct negotiation with APC and UQ and may be able to provide further >>>>> context. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Year two and three come to about $50k a pop, but this money is *not* >>>>> guaranteed. We have been extremely upfront with everyone involved that we >>>>> will only be able to fund the second and third years if we get the money >>>>> from the Foundation (or from elsewhere). So at some point we're going to >>>>> need to ask for this money, but not for quite some time. Obviously, we've >>>>> been firm that the best way to actually guarantee that we'll get the >>>>> funding >>>>> is for the first year's investment to produce those measurable outcomes >>>>> for >>>>> the Wikimedia movement so we can make a good argument that it's a project >>>>> worth investing further in. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We currently have on the order of $80k in cash reserves, and if you >>>>> subtract the $25k for the APC project that leaves us with about Subtract >>>>> another $5k for essential running costs over the next year (financial >>>>> software, office supplies, etc etc), and that leaves us with about $50k to >>>>> play with. $50k is a lot of money and it should be possible to achieve a >>>>> lot of impact with this, especially if we keep in mind that projects >>>>> should >>>>> be modest, measurable, and achievable. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> More generally speaking, I am wary of equating success for the chapter >>>>> purely in terms of how many dollars we can squeeze out of the Foundation. >>>>> Success needs to be measured in terms of our impact, whether that is the >>>>> creation of new content, the recruitment of new editors, or encouraging >>>>> diversity. I believe that by concentrating on smaller and simpler >>>>> projects, >>>>> we can have a measurable impact in those spaces within the next twelve >>>>> months, without exhausting our reserve funds, which will put us in a much >>>>> better position to request money for the Linkage Grant and other >>>>> programmes >>>>> in the future. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Craig >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Message: 1 >>>>> Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2013 15:18:09 +0000 >>>>> From: Adam Jenkins <[email protected]> >>>>> To: Wikimedia-au <[email protected]> >>>>> Subject: [Wikimediaau-l] Funding query >>>>> Message-ID: >>>>> >>>>> <cabrrgoa3eyqtkpilw42asfhw0qsvnns5ri_hrhxa+25icoc...@mail.gmail.com> >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>>>> >>>>> Hi! >>>>> >>>>> I was surprised to see that WMAU didn't put in an application for >>>>> funding >>>>> with the FDC in the October round. As a result, we won't be getting any >>>>> funds from that route in 2013, especially as we didn't apply in the >>>>> earlier >>>>> round. As near as I can figure, we currently have commitments of at >>>>> least >>>>> $54k in 2014 as part of the ARC Linkage grant, along with the $29k >>>>> commitment for 2013 (which was quarantined and covered), but it seems >>>>> that >>>>> meeting these commitments will drain us of remaining funds unless >>>>> something >>>>> has changed with the Linkage grant or we have an alternative revenue >>>>> stream >>>>> in place. >>>>> >>>>> In light of comments about the possible changes to FDC funding, where >>>>> does >>>>> this leave us? Do we have sufficient funds to see us out until June, >>>>> 2014, >>>>> when the next FDC round is due to be decided? >>>>> >>>>> It seems that this may be worth discussing, especially if there's >>>>> anything >>>>> that we can do to get alternative revenue sources in place. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Adan, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Leigh Blackall >> +61(0)404561009 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimediaau-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimediaau-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l > -- GN. Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
